Why I Am Not A Christian

[Anguille]

I am absolutely responsible for my actions. Point is, I'm not responsible to MAD for them. I'm responsible to GOD, and HE is the one who gets to question and chastise me for what I do with the personality He gave me, not Mad or any other non-Christian.

Oh, and this sort of criticism is rich coming from a group of people who like to tout the belief that we're all just animals, and therefore can't be wrong in acting on our animal instincts.

When did I ever say we're all just animals and no act of ours is wrong?

BTW, why are you not responsible to others for the impact your conduct has on them? Is this another flight of fancy you have as a result of being "christian"? The rest of us are responsible to one another -- what do you claim makes you so special?

When did I ever say YOU said it? Just another example of how incredibly self-centered you are.

I am responsible for what I choose to do. I am not remotely responsible for how YOU choose to feel about it or react to it. That's all you. As for "claiming to be special", I'M not the one who presumes to lecture others on how to practice a religion I not only don't share, but disdain. So once again, you have ventured off into arrogant hypocrisy.

Actually, you imply that I, since your post is a response to me, come "from a group of people who like to tout the belief that we're all just animals, and therefore can't be wrong in acting on our animal instincts." I just dismissed it as more of your inanities.

 

[Anguille]

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

I'm dead serious about this. Seek some professional therapy. I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not. You have real, severe psychological issues.

 

[Anguille]

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

Well said, Cecilie's tactic is just another version of Newby's "You have a chip on your shoulder" deflection.

 

[Anguille]

I'm dead serious about this. Seek some professional therapy. I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not. You have real, severe psychological issues.

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

It's simply amazing that you are able to diagnose mental disorders and disease from anonymous posts on a message board! You must be a medical genius!!! I wonder why Oprah has not discovered you yet!

 

[Sky Dancer]

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

It's simply amazing that you are able to diagnose mental disorders and disease from anonymous posts on a message board! You must be a medical genius!!! I wonder why Oprah has not discovered you yet!

Maybe Madeline is a 'recovering Catholic'.

I found a young woman's website who wrote her own personal "12 step program for Catholics Anonymous." This website includes testimonies of ex-christians.
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/04/recovering-catholic.html

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I seem to vaguely remember an utterly boring and pointless debate concerning masochism in which neither party knew squat about the subject. I skipped it.

That's amazing. You appear to have both skipped the conversation AND evaluated it at the same time! That's talent right there.

I'm glad to know that you accept that you're no one, but it's really unnecessary for you to go to so much trouble to tell me you're interested in my posts.

This is just feeding to the point that you seem to type nothing but 3rd grade insults instead of actually addressing the topic of conversation.

I don't much care if you made some semblance of relevant point pages ago. Going on for pages after that about absolutely nothing but personal gripes still makes you a whiner. If you have a point to make about the topic, make it. If you've already made it, stop typing. Pointing fingers and resorting to name calling doesn't support anything you've said. Return to making points.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Yanno guys, I am beginning to sense that it is criticism of christianity, not the tone or the manners or any perceived criticism of its adherents, that really upsets you. Tell me -- why's the subject so touchy we cannot discuss it without so much angst?

Are you this careful not to offend others?

Oh, I'm fine with it alllllll day long... While your at it though, maybe you can tell me why you all get so offended at Christians defending themselves or sharing their faith?

If you want to talk about touchy, just mention the word Jesus and the opposition goes ballistic. But they have no problem bashing all day long. Why is that?

 

[THE LIGHT]

The Light, I am not entirely sure a person can "hate" a belief system the same way they "hate" other people. I'm outraged by the RCC, and I think justifiably so. Beyond that I'm not sure I have an emotional response to christianity....I do to the behavior of some who call themselves "christians", but that is not quite the same thing.

I suspect the easy way out for some of you reading this who accept that I had "every opportunity" to become a christian adult and yet did not is to try a bit of psychoanalysis and conclude that my resentment of the injustices I endured and saw as a child drove me away from the faith I otherwise would have been so at home with. The "but for" argument. And it is true, if things had been different they wouldn't be the same.

Easy way out? Ain't it interesting how you try to do a bit of psychoanalysis on Christians and then when I turn the tables you call it "the easy way out"?

However, none of that responds directly to any of the points I made about the faith. None of it addresses the inconsistencies, the misuse or the flawed logic. Replies like the one you have made may marginalize me in the eyes of some readers, but they don't happen to be accurate and they don't respond to any of the criticisms that have been made of the faith by myself and others.

It responds to the post that you used to attempt a marginalization of Christians.

Maybe if you did me the courtesy of accepting that what I have written is my own truth, rather than making up a fairy tale for me to substitute for your comfort, we'd get further in this discussion.

Unfortunately, that is precisely the problem. I read your OP and accepted it as coming straight from the horses mouth.

Let's read again in case you forgot already...

The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy. It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits. Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set. I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."

This was YOUR second paragraph in the OP. You know the OP with the title "Why I am not a Christian"

You are the one writing your own fairy tale I guess. All I'm doing is connecting the dots.

 

[Madeline]

This seems to summarize the responses from the christians so far:

Avatar says he has pondered long and hard and still has questions. (Fair enough.)

Pixie Stix says the faith changed her life and is meaningful to her for that reason (and it's a good one) but she doesn't care to debate it. (Fair enough.)

CurveLight says the wrong people respond to his posts and apparently is no longer willing to dialogue because of it.

Cecilie says I am mentally defective and unworthy of her time and attention -- 1,001 times.

Newby says she'd reply substantively if I weren't so damed rude.

TheLight sees a mental defect and is so fascinated, he cannot reply substantively either.

Have I got this right? If none of the christians cares to address any of the issues others have with the faith, okie dokie. Stop posting and allow the rest of us to discuss.....whether you acknowledge it or not, your faith influences all our lives. From the Moral Majority to the claim that "this is a nation founded on christian values" to a million other issues, your boot is on our neck.

A person does not have to be a practicing christian to have legitimate complaints/issues/questions about christianity. It might be nice to discuss them with christians, but that t'aint necessary.....just to dialogue about them at all is welcome, at least to me.

 

[Anguille]

This seems to summarize the responses from the christians so far:

Avatar says he has pondered long and hard and still has questions. (Fair enough.)

Pixie Stix says the faith changed her life and is meaningful to her for that reason (and it's a good one) but she doesn't care to debate it. (Fair enough.)

CurveLight says the wrong people respond to his posts and apparently is no longer willing to dialogue because of it.

Cecilie says I am mentally defective and unworthy of her time and attention -- 1,001 times.

Newby says she'd reply substantively if I weren't so damed rude.

TheLight sees a mental defect and is so fascinated, he cannot reply substantively either.

Have I got this right? If none of the christians cares to address any of the issues others have with the faith, okie dokie. Stop posting and allow the rest of us to discuss.....whether you acknowledge it or not, your faith influences all our lives. From the Moral Majority to the claim that "this is a nation founded on christian values" to a million other issues, your boot is on our neck.

A person does not have to be a practicing christian to have legitimate complaints/issues/questions about christianity. It might be nice to discuss them with christians, but that t'aint necessary.....just to dialogue about them at all is welcome, at least to me.

Madeline, I'm interested to know at what age did you begin to have doubts about the validity of your Christian indoctrination. How did you come to have your own original ideas about the existence of God and the nonexistence of an afterlife?

 

[Madeline]

I was about 5 when the folks died, and I really cannot recall any attendance at church while I lived with them. I made my First Holy Communion the following year, and that was great -- pretty white dress, etc. Having to memorize a bunch of stuff didn't put me off, but First Holy Confession did. I wasn't too clear on what a sin was or how I might have committed one as a six year old. It made no sense and when I asked, I was punished...a pattern that would be repeated ever-after. By the 4th grade, I had my priviledges to ask questions during Religious Instruction class revoked permanently, creating a huge gap between what made sense to me and what I was expected to learn and believe, not to mention, arousing a sense of injustice in me.

(I've had an odd sense of deja vu about this reading some of the posts to this thread. Just shut up, shut up shut up -- don't ask questions. Doing so makes you a bad person.)

I went to all the services I was required to during childhood, but I was the kid who aped singing because, unless the hymn was in Latin and I could amuse myself by translating, I was b-o-r-e-d. During my whole childhood, I made my Confession every Saturday with the same sins to the same priest -- and received wildly varying penances as a result. I also wondered why the priest didn't clue in that I was admitting to saying "shut up" twice and lying once during the past week every single week. I didn't think he was paying attention, and the whole exercize seemed like a meaningless ritual to me.

Once I was free, it just never even occurred to me to return. I attended a family funeral at about 19 and watched "The Exorcist" around then as well, and both aroused powerful feelings for the "faith of my youth". For the rituals, really. But each time the feeling faded quickly.

As for how my beliefs formed, that's harder to answer. I am the only girl I knew in childhood to have survived even into young adulthood -- drugs, crime and suicide claimed the rest as far as I know. I think to some degree, I have survivor guilt and explain the odd result I have benefited from by assuming there is a God. And as I said, there have been moments -- months and years really -- when I think I was only able to go on with God's Grace. The funny thing is, though I cannot articulate some fantabulous proof that God exists, I feel certain in my bones that he does.

There's been a "death in the family" almost since I can remember. So more than most kidlets, I knew death happened, I knew what it meant and I had to cope with its aftermath. I'm not a big believer in self-comfort from bullshit. The dead are gone, for good. Somewhere around age 40 it dawned on me what good news this is -- if a person has been extinguished completely, there is nothing left of him to suffer. Add to this, of course, all the ridiculous intricate shifting descriptions of Heaven and Hell I had been treated to, along with a list of who went where. Being rebellious, I thought if there was a destination I'd rather be entertained in Hell than bored in Heaven. It's a bit difficult to live your life aiming to wind up in Hell, and since all my efforts to reform myself went nowhere, I just chucked the whole thing. Not a very elegant reply on this issue either, I suppose, but again -- in my bones I feel that I have this nailed 100% correct.

If God exists and an after-life does not, I mused, then what call is there for ethics? Maybe I just have an over-active conscience, but I felt badly when I acted badly. From there sprang all my beliefs about what really constitutes Justice, etc.

What about you, Anguille? Were you raised as a christian?

 

[Frank]

This seems to summarize the responses from the christians so far:

Avatar says he has pondered long and hard and still has questions. (Fair enough.)

Pixie Stix says the faith changed her life and is meaningful to her for that reason (and it's a good one) but she doesn't care to debate it. (Fair enough.)

CurveLight says the wrong people respond to his posts and apparently is no longer willing to dialogue because of it.

Cecilie says I am mentally defective and unworthy of her time and attention -- 1,001 times.

Newby says she'd reply substantively if I weren't so damed rude.

TheLight sees a mental defect and is so fascinated, he cannot reply substantively either.

Have I got this right? If none of the christians cares to address any of the issues others have with the faith, okie dokie. Stop posting and allow the rest of us to discuss.....whether you acknowledge it or not, your faith influences all our lives. From the Moral Majority to the claim that "this is a nation founded on christian values" to a million other issues, your boot is on our neck.

A person does not have to be a practicing christian to have legitimate complaints/issues/questions about christianity. It might be nice to discuss them with christians, but that t'aint necessary.....just to dialogue about them at all is welcome, at least to me.

I have responded and done so to sincere questions and in a respectful manner to those asking, but I did not get into a sparring match. Just like it has been said, a "dialogue about them at all is welcome" is not true from what I have seen. Rather, a bait and bash session is more of what is wanted.

 

[Madeline]

My apologies, Frank. The thread is now almost 70 pages long and to be honest, I don't recall your replies. I'd agree they most likely were not incendiary or I would.

So would you care to dialogue?

I see christianity as anti-female and anti-sexual; do you agree there's a problem in this regard?

 

[Newby]

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

The 'issues' that you are raising are from specific Catholic churches 25 to 35 years ago and have nothing to do with 95% of christianity as it is practiced today. Yet no matter how often that is said, you all continue to insist that it's all exactly as it was whenever your youthful experiences took place. I guess that's the only place from which you can continue to feel justified for the constant bashing tho, so you chose to remain in that time warp. I think Cecilie is completely right in the observation that counseling may be a good thing since it doesn't seem possible for movement out of the mindset that was formed when in childhood. I'm sincerely sorry that some have had bad experiences as children where religion was concerned, however, by adulthood one should realize that their childhood experiences were unique to them and perhaps a small percentage of others and not paint an entire religion with the same disdain they held for their childhood influences. Quit using what you experienced in your childhood as a crutch or an excuse, move on or get help with it.

 

[Newby]

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

I have a very good basis for that claim. It's called "reading her posts". The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder. I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality". Everyone has issues, Sky, even you. Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any. Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.

Madeline has stated that Christianity is anti-female and anti-sex. Those are debateable issues.

Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business. I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

Then how do you explain many people who have not experienced the same things that you or she has experienced? I grew up Catholic and never felt that it was anti-female or anti-sex. Maybe it's possible that other people have had difference experiences than you? It's not only possible, it's a fact. Why isn't 'she' bashing on the Muslim religion then if those are her issues? They are far more anti-female and anti-sex than the Christian religion ever was, yet I haven't heard a peep about Islam from any of you.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The topic is "Why I Am Not A Christian'. I would think it has interest for all of us. We all have stories as to what led our paths in live a certain way.

There is no need to pathologize our choices. If the topic is uncomfortable then there is always the choice to not participate.

 

[Newby]

Okay. You're just too fucking dumb to understand fighting for Civil Rights doesn't mean one has "masochistic" tendencies even if it entails physical violence.

This is hilarious. You haven't shown yourself to have no clue about the meaning of the word since you had to go look it up in the dictionary and pick out the wrong definition. You once again are splitting this into an all-or-nothing idea, whereas you see "masochism" as a bad thing, and good causes can't possibly have bad aspects to them. FALSE! The reason is irrelevant. If someone is willingly taking on pain, either actively or passively, it is a masochistic tendency, regardless of whether the cause is sexual gratification, striving for civil rights, or winning a sports match. The cause doesn't matter. The fact that you still don't understand this fact is just laughably incredible.

Saying that 'most' Christian sects are anti-sexual is an unsupportable statement.

It's surprising anyone would contest this point. Sexuality has been condemned and suppressed by Christianity for centuries, and is still very clearly seen in today's society under the guise of "family values" and "morals". Let's look at Catholicism, and it's stance on pre-marital and life-long priest celibacy. What is the church's stance on masturbation? Which group is solely responsible for pushing abstinence only education even after it was proven to increase teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission? Which group in America is largely responsible for abhorring and preventing gay marriage and other LGBT community activities?

It's clear to me that the only form of sexuality accepted widely by the leaders of Christianity is the form they deem as appropriate. You're missing a large part of sexuality if you can only experience it under someone else's rules.

As for the question regarding the large Christian families: this is a product of the sexual constrictions. Do you not realize they exist because of lack of belief in birth control? Are you unaware of the emotional and financial burden it can be to only have unprotected sex and just take the consequences? Come on, think why.

My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable. I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive. That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism. The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.

'Repressive' is in the eye of the beholder is it not? It's a very subjective term and what you may find repressive another may not. You're making judgments based on your own definition of the word. Maybe those who believe in the commitment of marriage and keeping sex within the marriage don't find the Catholic church 'repressive'. Why does everyone have to think like you do?

 

[Anguille]

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

The 'issues' that you are raising are from specific Catholic churches 25 to 35 years ago and have nothing to do with 95% of christianity as it is practiced today. Yet no matter how often that is said, you all continue to insist that it's all exactly as it was whenever your youthful experiences took place. I guess that's the only place from which you can continue to feel justified for the constant bashing tho, so you chose to remain in that time warp. I think Cecilie is completely right in the observation that counseling may be a good thing since it doesn't seem possible for movement out of the mindset that was formed when in childhood. I'm sincerely sorry that some have had bad experiences as children where religion was concerned, however, by adulthood one should realize that their childhood experiences were unique to them and perhaps a small percentage of others and not paint an entire religion with the same disdain they held for their childhood influences. Quit using what you experienced in your childhood as a crutch or an excuse, move on or get help with it.

I'd like to hear you say that to a person who was raped by a priest.

 

[Newby]

I have a very good basis for that claim. It's called "reading her posts". The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder. I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality". Everyone has issues, Sky, even you. Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any. Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.

Madeline has stated that Christianity is anti-female and anti-sex. Those are debateable issues.

No, they aren't, because she didn't say it based on any knowledge of Christianity at large. She said it based on her own personal issues with CATHOLICISM, which she then projected onto every other Christian denomination in existence. Which, by the way, bears out my statement concerning "paranoia". She attributes Catholic dogma, or what she perceives Catholic dogma to be, onto anyone who even remotely resembles a Catholic in her eyes.

I have no intention of arguing the beliefs of MY church with someone who's assuming what they are based on some OTHER church's beliefs. That's ridiculous.

Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business. I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.

Then you must not have read her OP, or any of her successive posts. When she hauls her fucking childhood in a fucking Catholic orphanage out for everyone's delectation and then starts spewing crazed, bigoted rants about Christianity based on it, she sure the hell HAS invited me and anyone with two brain cells to rub together to figure out that she has issues. And if she can start a whole thread to tell us how much she hates Christians, then I can sure respond with how much I think she needs therapy. She seems so proud of how "blunt" she is, so she can bloody well suck up a little blunt speaking in return.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

I'm not impugning anything. I'm making a statement of fact. She's a bigot, and she hates Christianity. Is it my fault that the character aspects I notice are flaws, or her fault that the character aspects she EXHIBITS are flaws? Am I supposed to pretend that a Klan member dressed in a white sheet and spewing against black people is not a racist jerk?

She's not taking the Catholic Church to task on its teachings. She's tarring and feathering the whole of Christianity (of which the non-Catholic members FAR outnumber the Catholic ones, thank you so very much) based on what a handful of people running an orphanage when she was a child did. And she's hating ALL OF US for it.

If you can't see that, then I can only assume you have another agenda here that makes you willfully blind, because it's as plain as the nose on my face.

Excellent.

 

[Madeline]

Newby, which faith organizes and opposes gay marriage? The repeal of DADT? Which one fights against a woman's right to abortion? Which one lobbies the FDA to keep safer abortificants away from US women? Which one opposes teaching sex ed to public school students?

We cannot even elect a politician or nominate someone to the judiciary without doing a gut-check on their adherence to christianity. Yes, there are exceptions....but read the Kagan bashing threads. Far too many complain she might not decide cases along the lines their christianity dictates.